Are Photographs Art

Are photographs art? Can they be an art form? Apparently yes.

No more pencils. no more books. No more teacher's dirty looks. School's out for summer.

Another in the series...

Viewing those two images in that order certainly evokes a feeling- Oh, no! Squished kids! Oh, wait - it's just sidewalk chalk.

Yeah, that one was puzzling. One girl looks dead/unconscious, but the other looks like she still coloring. I must have looked at a dozen sites and can't determine the proper order, if there is one, to this series.

Photo art, huh. What about this:

[ATTACH]56317[/ATTACH]

Gregory Crewson's work is interesting on many levels. But it is the type of art that most won't enjoy without knowing how to enjoy it. I remember bicycling around out west and visiting a lot of national parks and being stymied by the "interpretive centers" wondering how or why someone would need a forest or glacier, or hotspring interpreted for them. As I got older and pulled some of my head out of my ass, I realized that no one knows everything about the parks and that while interpretation may be overselling the idea, information has one set of associations with it, and education sounds boring before the last syllable is out of your mouth.

Crewson's work demands and interpretive center in order to more fully appreciate it, just like an explanation of the Redwood forest can elevate it from being trees to an intricately complex ecosystem.


But first, define Art. And why not take a stab at Defining Photography while we're at it?
;)

It took an awful lot of money or an awful lot of pull, maybe both. to shoot this series. Looking at these two, and more of his work, embiggened, lightened, etc, I keep finding details that may or may not been intentional, maybe part of the interpretation or just static. It's hard to figure out the plot when I can't tell the actors from the scenery. At least with a painting, if it's there it's supposed to be.
Yes, needs a interpretation center. Hopefully whoever paid $33 grand for the first OP picture, got an explanation or brochure.

xoxoxoBruce;959058 wrote:

It took an awful lot of money or an awful lot of pull, maybe both. to shoot this series. Looking at these two, and more of his work, embiggened, lightened, etc, I keep finding details that may or may not been intentional, maybe part of the interpretation or just static. It's hard to figure out the plot when I can't tell the actors from the scenery. At least with a painting, if it's there it's supposed to be.
Yes, needs a interpretation center. Hopefully whoever paid $33 grand for the first OP picture, got an explanation or brochure.

His photo shoots are produced more like film shoots. I've worked in studios where there was a lot of production behind the image (food, product, and fashion) but even the most complicated, bloated photo shoot was simple compared to an average scene in a film shoot.

Crewdson (I thought there was a D in there) takes the film approach but makes a single frame rather than a whole movie.

This is a very well done clip illustrating his process. I find watching the process much more satisfying than the end result, but I'm a process-oriented guy. If getting there isn't half the fun, then why bother making the trip? Am I right, ladies? ;)


[VIMEO]50504417[/VIMEO]

xoxoxoBruce;959058 wrote:

Hopefully whoever paid $33 grand for the first OP picture, got an explanation or brochure.

33 large?! Can't imagine what it'll be worth after Greg's dead.